[three_fourth]

and Brooke Williams, inewsource

San Diego attorney Cory Briggs and his personal and professional partner, Sarichia Cacciatore, have signed contradictory documents about where they live and their relationship — potential felonies according to a prosecutor and mortgage fraud experts.

An ongoing inewsource investigation has raised conflict-of-interest questions about Briggs’ and Cacciatore’s professional relationship as well as legal questions about Briggs’ land deals.

inewsource recently reviewed documents — sworn statements — that show discrepancies about where the couple lives.

In 2002, Briggs and Cacciatore bought a home in Clairemont, and in 2010, they purchased another house in Sunset Cliffs. They have lived in that home since at least 2011, according to voter registration records, campaign contributions and homeowner exemptions filed with the county.

In 2013, however, the couple claimed the Clairemont house was their primary place of residence, or “owner occupied,” on paperwork for a $259,000 mortgage for that dwellingOn that loan, they listed their Sunset Cliffs home as their current address.

Lenders generally give more favorable interest rates and terms for owner-occupied houses because they believe they will be better maintained than rentals.

In December 2014, when Cacciatore was being deposed as part of a lawsuit Briggs had brought, an attorney asked her if she “had the same tenants in that property” in Clairemont since 2010. Briggs objected to the question and instructed Cacciatore, his client, not to answer.

Cacciatore had applied to the City of San Diego in 2012 to certify the Clairemont home as a vacation rental.

[box type=”shadow post-form”]

Oops! We could not locate your form.

[/box]

John Campbell, a trial lawyer, mortgage fraud expert and professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, said misrepresenting occupancy information on a mortgage is done for various reasons, ranging from “pure negligence” to obtaining better loans.

“That changes underwriting,” he said, “it changes the likelihood of lending, it changes the rates and it could change insurance structures, too.”

Vance Welch, a deputy district attorney in San Bernardino County, said intentionally misstating facts on a recorded document is a penal code violation — “still a state prison offense.”

“The whole idea, why it’s so important, why people should care,” Welch said, “is the preservation of the records. We have to have somewhere where we can go and believe that there is validity to this record.”

Richard Hagar specializes in real estate and mortgage fraud compliance and legislation in Washington and trains attorneys general and other law enforcement agencies across the country in detecting predatory lending and fraud. He said misrepresenting information on sworn documents is serious.

“That’s a felony at that point,” he said. “And that’s a Bar issue too.”

Briggs and Cacciatore also signed at least four recorded documents with San Diego County as “husband and wife” between 2009 and 2013.

In the 2014 deposition, Cacciatore stated that she was not married to Briggs and never had been.

If Cacciatore lied about her relationship with Briggs under oath, it would be considered perjury. Likewise, recording a deed stating they are “husband and wife,” if they know they are not, would constitute filing a “false document,” a violation of Penal Code Section 115(a), according to Welch.

Neither Briggs nor Cacciatore responded to a request for comment on this story.

[/three_fourth]

Brad Racino is the assistant editor and senior investigative reporter at inewsource. He's a big fan of transparency, whistleblowers and government agencies forgetting to redact key information from FOIA requests. Brad received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri...

2 replies on “More contradictions found in Briggs-Cacciatore land records — with links”

  1. While the words “husband and wife” have a popular definition, what about the legal definition? Is there anything here that a record has not been preserved, or that Cacciatore and Briggs are misrepresenting their legal relationship to each other, even if not “married?” Or is their shortcoming not indicating on various forms “we have legal relationship to each other equivalent to husband and wife even though we are not married”?

    You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. Clear up the semantics and the legal effect of the semantics (utilize them experts) and you might have something newsworthy here. Until then, the fishing expedition continues… Zzzz

Comments are closed.